While you can't really tell from the local papers, there's actually a race for mayor going on. To read the dailies, Mayor Schell is already setting up his visionary, dynamic shop, and the only formal ratification left is some vote in a few weeks against some screwball/gadfly/irritant/nutcase (pick four) that several voters accidentally, inexplicably supported in the primary.

The main establishment rap against Charlie Chong, when they bother to acknowledge him, is that he's "divisive." It's a term being thrown around by lots of your elected officials, including council head Jan Drago, who also (as she and six other council members endorsed Schell) noted that it wouldn't matter if Chong was elected anyway, because he would be recalled in a matter of months. So much for respecting the will of the voters--or, for that matter, fostering the harmony so valued in Seattle politics.

The problem downtowners have with Chong isn't that he's divisive. That's a myth, hammered home in true yellow journalism style by our local pro-Paul papers, and it's worth a closer look. The Seattle Press (an excellent neighborhood newspaper, by the way, and one of the few outlets to actually cover the internal workings of city and neighborhood politics) printed a revealing list recently of Chong's losing votes on City Council.

How many times, in Charlie's stormy year on council, has he been the lone dissenter? Exactly four times. In fact, Chong has voted with the majority far more often than not--as with any council member, given the enormous amount of routine business processed. The votes on which, according to the Press, Chong was the lone holdout:

In January, Chong lost 7-1 on his plan to buy cheap snowplows. After Bellevue snapped them up (and sent Seattle's council a letter of thanks for helping Bellevue save money), Chong and others voted 7-1 (Pageler opposing) to approve a far more expensive plan.
Chong lost 8-1 on his amendment to retain parking requirements on the revised accessory housing (mother-in-law) ordinance. In other words, there have to be adequate parking spaces for the zoned amount of housing.
Chong lost on a plan to add a civilian observer to the toothless police shooting review board. It wouldn't help much for this powerless farce, but it would've been a start.
Chong voted alone in the initial opposition to Holly Park redevelopment. After the Seattle Displacement Coalition and others made it a huge issue, Richard McIver brokered a compromise plan that saved some of the low-income housing the council majority would have trashed.

The Press article found only a handful of additional times when Chong was on the losing side at all: neighborhood rezoning, Key Tower, the transportation levy, Sand Point, harsher park ordinance enforcement (the new Sidran toy), a Library Board reappointment, the Mariners' blackmail efforts last winter, and open council hearings. That's it.

The problem isn't that Chong is divisive; it's that he is an impediment to the "bottomless cookie jar" approach to government that will, if it's possible, get even worse under Paul Schell. Chong has had the temerity to ask pointed questions, about things like budget details and technical specifications, to department heads, city staff, and council colleagues not accustomed to having their documentation challenged. Moreover, lots of city staffers despise Chong and his aides for not being as respectful and deferential to city staff as other council members are. In many jurisdictions, that kind of oversight is considered a basic function of elected officials. In Seattle, apparently, it's "divisive."

Chong is far from an ideal candidate. A number of his statements in his first debate with Schell--including a pledge to hire 50 more cops, opposition to the handgun initiative, and a ringing endorsement of suburban sprawl--are deeply troubling. So was his championing of anti-homeless bigots at Sand Point. His record is mixed on many such social issues. But he's getting railroaded--and smeared--by forces who show no sign of caring, noticing, or being open to public input on any of those issues. In the world of the Times, the P-I, Drago, and her colleagues and sponsors, Chong is a lunatic because he could have been a coveted member of the clubhouse, and he chose not to be. We should have more such crazies in public office.